2690-6791ISSN (Online)
2769-786XISSN (Print)
Volume 13 , Issue 1 , PP: 135-150, 2024 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Eman Shawky Mira 1 , Ahmed Mohamed Saaduddin Sapri 2 , Taseer Bashir 3 , Khalid Hassan 4 , Abdulhameed Saeed Alghamdi 5 , Yousef Almasaabi 6 , Nagham Talal Maddah 7 , Hind F. Kayal 8 , El-Sayed M. El-kenawy 9 * , Mohamed Saber 10
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/JISIoT.130111
This paper provides two different methods to diagnose osteoporosis in women; the first method is the fractal analysis evaluated by CBCT at two bone locations (the mandible and the second cervical vertebrae) to see if there is any correlation between the two. At the same time, the second method is deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs). One hundred eighty-eight patients' mandibular CBCT images were used, and DCNN models based on the ResNet-101 framework were employed. Dual X-ray absorptiometry of the hip and lumbar spine revealed that 139 of the 188 postmenopausal women tested had osteoporosis, whereas 49 had average bone mineral density. The second cervical vertebra and the mandible were selected as locations of interest for FD analysis on the CBCT images. Measurement accuracy, both within and between observers' agreements, and correlations between two data sets were all calculated. To evaluate osteoporosis, we used a segmented, three-phase approach. Stage 1 was devoted to the identification of mandibular bone slices. In Stage 2, the coordinates for the mandible's cross-sectional views were established, and Stage 3 calculated the thickness of the mandible bone, emphasizing osteoporotic variations. The average FD values within the interest area of the mandible were significantly lower in people with osteoporosis than in those with average bone mineral density. At the same time, the two groups had no significant difference in FD values at the second cervical vertebra. For the mandibular site, areas beneath the curve were 0.644 (P = 0.008), while the area under the curve for the vertebral site was 0.531 (P = 0.720). DCNN training in the first stage yielded an astounding 98.85% training accuracy, the second stage decreased L1 loss to a meager 1.02 pixels, and the bone thickness computation method used in the last stage had a mean squared error of 0. 8377. We concluded that FD was underutilized even though it distinguished between women with normal BMD and those with osteoporosis in the mandibular area. Additionally, even with small mandibular CBCT datasets, the results show the value of a modular transfer learning approach for osteoporosis detection.
Osteoporosis , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , Fractals , Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry , Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs)
[1] NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA, 285, 785-95, 2001.
[2] Atik OS, Gunal I, Korkusuz F, Burden of osteoporosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 443: 19-24, 2006.
[3] Marinho BC, Guerra LP, Drummond JB, Silva BC, Soares
[4] MM. The burden of osteoporosis in Brazil. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol, 58, 434-43, 2014.
[5] Høiberg MP, Rubin KH, Hermann AP, Brixen K, Abrahamsen
[6] B. Diagnostic devices for osteoporosis in the general population: a systematic review. Bone, 92, 58-69, 2016.
[7] Nakamoto T, Taguchi A, Ohtsuka M, Suei Y, Fujita M, Tanimoto K, et al. Dental panoramic radiograph as a tool to detect postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: un-trained general dental practitioners' diagnostic performance. Osteoporos Int , 14, 659-64, 2003.
[8] Schuit SC, van der Klift M, Weel AE, de Laet CE, Burger H, Seeman E, et al. Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in older men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone, 34, 195-202, 2004.
[9] Sanchez-Molina D, Velazquez-Ameijide J, Quintana V, Arregui-Dalmases C, Crandall JR, Subit D, et al. Fractal dimension and mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Med Eng Phys, 35, 576-82, 2013.
[10] Shokri A, Ghanbari M, Maleki FH, Ramezani L, Amini P, Tapak L, Relationship of gray values in cone beam computed tomography and bone mineral density obtained by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 128, 319-31, 2019.
[11] Pachêco-Pereira C, Almeida FT, Chavda S, Major PW, Leite A, Guerra EN, Dental imaging of trabecular bone structure for systemic disorder screening: a systematic review. Oral Dis, 25, 1009-26, 2019.
[12] Lespessailles E, Gadois C, Kousignian I, Neveu JP, Fardel-Lone P, Kolta S, et al. The clinical interest of bone texture analysis in osteoporosis: a case-control multicenter study. Osteoporos Int, 19, 1019-28, 2008.
[13] Guenoun D, Le Corroller T, Acid S, Pithioux M, Pauly V, Ariey-Bonnet D, et al. Radiographical texture analysis improves the prediction of vertebral fracture: an ex vivo biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38, E1320-6, 2013.
[14] Le Controller T, Halgrin J, Pithioux M, Guenoun D, Chabrand P, Champsaur P, Combination of texture analysis and bone mineral density improves the prediction of fracture load in human femurs. Osteoporos Int, 23,163-9, 2012.
[15] Mahmoud A. Zaher, Nabil M. Eldakhly, Yahia B. Hassan, The Emerging Role of Wearable Health Technologies in Proactive Disease Prevention, International Journal of Wireless and Ad Hoc Communication , Vol. 8 , No. 1 , (2024) : 40-50 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJWAC.080105)
[16] Yaşar F, Akgünlü F, The differences in panoramic mandibular indices and fractal dimension between patients with and without spinal osteoporosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 35, 1-9, 2006.
[17] Tosoni GM, Lurie AG, Cowan AE, Burleson JA. Pixel intensity and fractal analyses: detecting osteoporosis in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women using digital panoramic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 102, 235-41, 2006.
[18] Mohamed Saber , El-Sayed M. El-Kenawy , Abdelhameed Ibrahim , Marwa M. Eid, Watermarking System for Medical Images Using Optimization Algorithm, Fusion: Practice and Applications, Vol. 10 , No. 1 , (2023) : 89-99 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/FPA.100105)
[19] Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG, Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 30, 270-5, 2001.
[20] Law AN, Bollen AM, Chen SK, Detecting osteoporosis using dental radiographs: a comparison of four methods. J Am Dent Assoc, 127, 1734-42, 1996.
[21] Magat G, Ozcan Sener S, Evaluation of a trabecular pattern of the mandible using fractal dimension, bone area fraction, and grayscale value: comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol, 35, 35-42, 2019.
[22] Bornstein M, Scarfe W, Vaughn V, Jacobs R, Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29 Suppl, 55-77, 2014.
[23] Yepes JF, Al-Sabbagh M, Use of cone-beam computed tomography in early detection of implant failure. Dent Clin North Am, 59, 41-56, 2015.
[24] Brasileiro CB, Chalub LL, Abreu MH, Barreiros ID, Amaral TM, Kakehasi AM, et al., Use of cone beam computed tomography in identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, Arch Osteoporos, 12- 26, 2017.
[25] Alkhader M, Aldawoodyeh A, Abdo N. Usefulness of measuring the bone density of mandibular condyle in patients at risk of osteoporosis: a cone beam computed tomography study. Eur J Den, 12, 363-8, 2018.
[26] Guerra EN, Almeida FT, Bezerra FV, Figueiredo PT, Silva MA, De Luca Canto G, et al. The capability of CBCT to identify patients with low bone mineral density: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 46, 20160475, 2017.
[27] De Castro JG, Carvalho BF, de Melo NS, de Souza Figueiredo PT, Moreira-Mesquita CR, de Faria Vasconcelos K, et al., A new cone-beam computed tomography-driven index for osteoporosis prediction. Clin Oral Investig, 24, 3193-202, 2020
[28] Mostafa RA, Arnout EA, Abo El-Fotouh MM, Feasibility of cone beam computed tomography radiomorphometric analysis and fractal dimension in assessment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in correlation with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 45, 20160212, 2016.
[29] Güngör E, Yildirim D, Çevik R, Evaluation of osteoporosis in jaw bones using cone beam CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Oral Sci, 58, 185-94, 2016.
[30] Hilton C, Milinovich A, Felix C, Vakharia N, Crone T, Donovan C, Proctor A, Nazha A, Personalized Predictions of Patient Outcomes during and after Hospitalization Using Artificial Intelligence. NPJ Digit. Med., 3, 51, 2020.
[31] Dlamini Z, Francies F. Z., Hull R., Marima R, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data in Cancer and Precision Oncology. Comput.Struct. Biotechnol. J., 18, 2300–2311, 2020.
[32] Cavalcante D.D.S., Silva P.G.D.B., Carvalho F.S.R., Quidute A.R.P., Kurita L.M., Cid A.M.P.L., Ribeiro T.R., Gurgel M.L., Kurita B.M., Costa F.W.G, Is Jaw Fractal Dimension a Reliable Biomarker for Osteoporosis Screening? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. , 51, 20210365, 2022.
[33] Xu W, Fu Y, Zhu D, ResNet and Its Application to Medical Image Processing: Research Progress and Challenges. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed, 240, 107660, 2023.
[34] Sindeaux R, Figueiredo PT, de Melo NS, Guimarães AT, Lazarte L, Pereira FB, et al. Fractal dimension and mandible-lar cortical width in average and osteoporotic men and women. Maturitas 77, 142-8, 2014.
